I agree with you to a point. If a superior asks you to do something which is not sinful, I believe the obligation lies with you to do it. Especially in the case of those who are in their positions only working through his authority, such as priests and minor clergy in relation to the bishop.
Agreed.
If a person just didn’t want to change what he’d been doing his entire life and took the attitude of knowing better than the bishop, or wondering who the bishop thinks he is to order him around, I would agree that the person is in grave error.
Agreed.
If a person with a properly formed conscience believed that following the bishop’s orders put him and others, especially children, in grave spiritual danger then I would say his responsibility lies with the salvation of souls and not in following orders.
But: how to distinguish between a properly formed conscience and prelest; how to assess the gravity of spiritual danger; how to assess the reliability of one’s own thoughts on these matters. I think that the burden of proof that such an individual needs to meet is enormously high. Jesus gave us a church and an episcopate to guide us; choosing against His bishop is a very, very grave matter. From the internet discussions that I’ve seen from laity, there has been far too much religious consumerism (looking to find a church to suit one’s pre-inclinations), and too little respect for the gravity of the disobedience.
To say because you believe otherwise, a large contingent of the Byzantine Church (including many people we know to be well formed such as active laity, readers, cantors, deacons, and priests, who are opposed to these changes because they believe them to be potentially damaging) are placing themselves above authority is disingenuous.
You have meandered from “grave spiritual danger” to “potentially damaging” - a night-and-day distinction. It is easy to spell out the potential damage from any course of actions that the bishops may have taken - including their taking no action at all. But what, if any of this potential damage rise to the level of grave spiritual danger? I have seen a lot of arguments about the RDL, but very, very, very little at the level of grave spiritual danger.
For example, I understand aspects of the music criticism (since that’s the topic of the thread, but cannot conceive of them as “grave spiritual danger” (as Mickey seems to imply). Where are the grave spiritual dangers being discussed as grave spiritual dangers?
Apparently I am missing out on this discussion. You claim a large contingent of the well-formed including deacons and priests are opposing these changes and not obeying orders? I would like to know about this; is this claim objectively supportable.
To say that they are being potentially scandalous or impetuous to not blindly obey orders despite their firm conviction that the orders are spiritually damaging to themselves and others is to disregard that they are placing the ultimate authority where it belongs by following what they believe is the will of God for their lives, despite the temporal issues and personal risk it brings.
I disagree about the notion that by following what one believes to be the will of God is placing the ultimate authority where it belongs. This is Luther for sure, and a host of others. This is also probably Mohamed and even Joseph Smith.
The temporal issues and personal risk are nothing, compared to the grave spiritual danger of disobedience. If there are well-formed who are so sure that the bishops are wrong - not at the level of policy, but at the level of theology - of grave spiritual danger - then these folks have a duty to be shouting from the roof tops about these grave issues. Not hearing it. A lot of kvetching, but little else.
